MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285230986 · doi:10.5267/j.ccl.2022.3.005

Molecular docking, spectroscopic studies and simulation of the dopamine molecule by the DFT and MP2 methods

2022· article· en· W4285230986 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hayat EL Ouafy, Mouna Aamor, Latifa Amini, Mustapha Oubenali, Mohamed Mbarki, Aziz EL Haimouti, Tarik EL Ouafy

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Chemistry Letters · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicMolecular spectroscopy and chirality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryMoleculeComputational chemistryChemical shiftRaman spectroscopyBasis setMolecular geometryMolecular vibrationSpectral lineDensity functional theoryPhysical chemistryPhysicsOrganic chemistryQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The FTIR and Raman spectra of dopamine were also recorded in the spectral region 20 - 4000 cm-1 and 400 - 4000 cm-1 respectively. The optimized molecular geometry and fundamental vibration frequencies are interpreted using structural optimizations based on the DFT method. The B3LYP / 6-311G (d, p) was used to determine the calculations of the chemical descriptor. The dopamine (DA) molecule can acquire a maximum charge of 0.513 eV from its environment. To understand the molecular interactions of Dopamine, the MEP is a crucial tool. Nonlinear optical descriptors (NLO) and the lengths, bond angles are also determined by DFT and MP2 methods. The DFT method was used to determine the chemical shifts of 1H and 13C of the product. These constants have been calculated by employing the GIAO (Gauge-Including-Atomic-Orbit), CSGT (Continuous Set of Gauge Transformations) and IGAIM (Individual Gauges for Atoms In Molecules) methods at the B3LYP/6-311G (d, p). The comparison of the theoretical chemical shifts with the experimental ones shows that the CSGT method is the best.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.588

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Chemistry LettersSame topicMolecular spectroscopy and chiralityFrench-language works237,207